Add This Video To Playlist

Flag This Video

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about the video, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates our Community Guidelines or isn't appropriate for all viewers. Abusing this feature is also a violation of the Community Guidelines, so don't do it.

Comments (10)

I remember this "Video Nasty" fad, I used to work at Applause video, which then got bought out by Blockbuster Video. There used to be a section of these type of movies, which were really just B movie schlock. I do remember when new memberships had to have a credit card as a security. I also remember R movie restrictions were rarely enforced by the CSR at Blockbuster, and more than half the parents anyway allowed their children to rent R movies.

I remember "Faces Of Death" and others like that, from the late 80’s...funny, it never occurred to me that some of the stuff might be faked. Anyway, civilization didn’t seem to come to an end as a result of these films, or maybe it did and we just didn’t notice.

Also, I thought it was interesting that neither Siskel nor Ebert seemed to pick up on the idea that Jack Nicholson’s character in "The Witches of Eastwick" is THE devil, Satan himself, not just A devil. That seemed obvious to me.

Boy, Roger seriously missed the mark on THE UNTOUCHABLES, but I do agree with him about De Nero here, otherwise this is one of the best movies of the 80’s.

I agree with them about HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS, kids’ films were getting awfully banal at this point in the 80’s. THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK was great, but I do sorta agree with Gene about the ending, the 80’s were the start of f/x overload.

The best thing about The Untouchables was Sean Connery’s performance, but on balance, I think I’m closer to Roger’s opinion on it, not a great movie, just fair to middling. Also, does anyone else think the score in it is lousy? I know it’s Ennio, but, I found it really grating at times.

Roger’s opinion about this film mystifies me. Right down the line, from Ness’ moral development (which really informs that last gunfight on the roof and makes it much more than just a "routine shoot out") to the purpose of Capone as a monolithic antagonistic presence finally brought down, to questions about morality and right, Gene hits the nail right on the head as far as I am concerned. This is a great film, the best of 1987, and the score for me was of a piece with it. It was not necessarily conventional music, and (like many aspects of De Palma’s films) sometimes drew attention to itself as music, but that went with the style of the film, whose structure and aesthetics are clear and not at all hidden, but very effective.

The older I’ve gotten, the more I sort of agree with Ebert on The Untouchables. I still enjoy the movie for De Palma’s virtuoso action sequences and for Connery’s well-deserved Oscar-winning performance, but... the script isn’t as deep as it could’ve been. Especially at the end, when Mamet’s right-wing tendencies ensure it so that when Eliot Ness finally kills Frank Nitti in cold blood, he gets over it all too easily.

I’m not sure how the script could have been much deeper without throwing the film out of balance. But I hardly think Ness gets over what he did to Nitti, or, especially, what he did to the judge. He does come to terms with it, but wistfully ("so much violence"), just as Malone had come to terms with it. I don’t think of that as a right-wing tendency. I think of it as a rapproachment in the battle between idealism and practicality. The De Niro character became the implacable wall against which Ness and the others shot their heart, finally breaking it down. In the most interesting irony, all of this blood and sacrifice was in support of income tax law and ultimately fighting a rule that was enormously unpopular in the first place.